Trans-Fascism

[Poofler]

Harsh was in reference to the general consequences of removing the state, not trans-fats. This issue is minor and I don't support a ban because of that.

[ QUOTE ]
Any consistent belief that people should be protected from bad decisions for the public good has to extend to gambling. Look at what it does-

- it costs an exceptional amount of money for a game that is an overall loss, emotionally and financially, to the people playing it.

- it dissuades some of our smartest citizens from providing a productive service to society by rewarding them more for taking people's chump change.

- it has been known to ruin lives, create addictions and incite violence.

- it increases the wealth gap by sending the proceeds to the exceedingly wealthy individuals who could afford the huge startup costs.

I've argued this here, but none of the paternalist nanny state supporters have the balls to admit that banning gambling on the grounds of it producing a drain on utility is entirely consistent with their other stupid ideas.

And since when is an honest discussion of pros and cons even necessary to getting a law passed? You act like the other things the government does is peachy, but this was just a rare exception. It wasn't; they just took away something that you like this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't act like other things the gov does is peachy. It [censored] up constantly, and irritates me to no end sometimes. Our system is quite flawed, and needs perpetual tweaking. It's annoying. It also involves a crapload of subjective judgment calls when balancing personal rights/interests against public ones. Accepting a system where these judgment calls are perpetually made means that you will have no "right" answer on any issue.

Your points about poker can be attributed to seeing concerts for christ's sake: expensive, reduces working time (productivity), occasionally results in drunken violence, gives money to rich artists from poor workers. Accepting a system of representive government that is supposed to balance personal liberties with public interests does not preclude me from arguing against a blanket ban on anything that might have the slightest negative effect on the "public good", in whatever way you measure it.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Your points about poker can be attributed to seeing concerts for christ's sake

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty disingenuous. Suffering from gambling addiction is no where close to being similar to going to see a concert. The psychology of gambling is such that it seems like free money and when the player goes bust they have to win it back, which just leads to further debt. Very few people, ie professional poker players, can see gambling from a rational point of view. When you go to a concert you basically know what you are getting into, there is no variance to obscure the true nature of the transaction.

Being for the nanny state is based on the assumption that people are not responsible for their actions. People are out of control children that need to be babysat at all times. The purpose behind banning transfat is because the state feels that we are to irresponsible to do a bit of internet research and learn which restaurants are using transfats. The state bans gambling because we are too irresponsible to manage our money. While we are at it we should ban credit cards, alcohol, smoking, pre-marital sex, and any number of other things that people screw their lives up over.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your points about poker can be attributed to seeing concerts for christ's sake

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty disingenuous. Suffering from gambling addiction is no where close to being similar to going to see a concert. The psychology of gambling is such that it seems like free money and when the player goes bust they have to win it back, which just leads to further debt. Very few people, ie professional poker players, can see gambling from a rational point of view. When you go to a concert you basically know what you are getting into, there is no variance to obscure the true nature of the transaction.

Being for the nanny state is based on the assumption that people are not responsible for their actions. People are out of control children that need to be babysat at all times. The purpose behind banning transfat is because the state feels that we are to irresponsible to do a bit of internet research and learn which restaurants are using transfats. The state bans gambling because we are too irresponsible to manage our money. While we are at it we should ban credit cards, alcohol, smoking, pre-marital sex, and any number of other things that people screw their lives up over.

[/ QUOTE ]

ianlippert, don't forget concerts, if they are too loud they damage your hearing, and if they are to fun you might be late for work the next day.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
ianlippert, don't forget concerts, if they are too loud they damage your hearing, and if they are to fun you might be late for work the next day.



[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG! your right, lets ban those too! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Suffering from gambling addiction is no where close to being similar to going to see a concert. The psychology of gambling is such that it seems like free money and when the player goes bust they have to win it back, which just leads to further debt. Very few people, ie professional poker players, can see gambling from a rational point of view. When you go to a concert you basically know what you are getting into, there is no variance to obscure the true nature of the transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know there are people who gamble for the fun of it, and put aside money that they can afford to lose. They play -$EV games, but the expierience overall for them is +EV. Not every losing gambler is a degenerate.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your points about poker can be attributed to seeing concerts for christ's sake

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty disingenuous. Suffering from gambling addiction is no where close to being similar to going to see a concert. The psychology of gambling is such that it seems like free money and when the player goes bust they have to win it back, which just leads to further debt. Very few people, ie professional poker players, can see gambling from a rational point of view. When you go to a concert you basically know what you are getting into, there is no variance to obscure the true nature of the transaction.

Being for the nanny state is based on the assumption that people are not responsible for their actions. People are out of control children that need to be babysat at all times. The purpose behind banning transfat is because the state feels that we are to irresponsible to do a bit of internet research and learn which restaurants are using transfats. The state bans gambling because we are too irresponsible to manage our money. While we are at it we should ban credit cards, alcohol, smoking, pre-marital sex, and any number of other things that people screw their lives up over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw trans-fats and poker, let's ban taking one line of a paragraph and nitpicking it without relevance to the argument. Let's try again.

HMK described why he thinks playing poker provides a drain on public utility. All I did is argue that a concert might produce some drains on public utility using his "negative" aspects about poker. Let's look at a few:

[ QUOTE ]
it dissuades some of our smartest citizens from providing a productive service to society by rewarding them more for taking people's chump change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe not our brightest, but fanboy worship of millionaire artists encourages young boys to forget education and pin their hopes and time on a garage band that never makes it. Many throw away a shot at a comfortable life in some middle managment position, for some powerball shot at stardom.

[ QUOTE ]
it has been known to ruin lives, create addictions and incite violence.

[/ QUOTE ]
More of the idolizing and focus on a ridiculously small shot of ever making it. You also get the occasional riot, violence, and sometimes even death. Altamont, The Who.

[ QUOTE ]
it increases the wealth gap by sending the proceeds to the exceedingly wealthy individuals who could afford the huge startup costs.

[/ QUOTE ]
More funneling of money from the working class to the already rich. Concerts certainly do not narrow the wealth gap.

HMK then said:
[ QUOTE ]
I've argued this here, but none of the paternalist nanny state supporters have the balls to admit that banning gambling on the grounds of it producing a drain on utility is entirely consistent with their other stupid ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

The POINT, is that it IS consistent with other "nanny state" stupid ideas. Government takes into account various negative "utility" aspects and also weighs them against personal liberties. I hardly believe the "negative" aspects about concerts outweigh the personal liberty of being able to have some fun. Same with poker. Same with trans-fats. Very rarely do I belive public utility outweighs private liberty. I value the two differently than many "nanny state" supporters. But, sometimes government decides: public utility > private liverties, and they go ban something. In my opinion, they decide wrongly quite a bit. But my opinion, and theirs is entirely subjective. In a representative government, I am therefore allowed to disagree with bans when I don't think public utility > private liberty. Accepting the subjective balancing system does not make me a hypocrite when I voice a differing opinion.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
You know there are people who gamble for the fun of it, and put aside money that they can afford to lose. They play -$EV games, but the expierience overall for them is +EV. Not every losing gambler is a degenerate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, and not everyone who eats transfats is lazy, over weight and suffering from heart conditions.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
the issue isnt on the consumer side at all, transfats taste worse and aren't significantly cheaper , at least not currently. Companies dont even have to switch suppliers, since virtually all of them carry transfat free oils.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. I've seen both of these arguments, but never *together*. Usually it's "transfat tastes worse, but companies use it to save money" or "transfats *improve* flavor." It's certainly possible that they enhance flavor in some foods and worsen it in others, but I haven't heard that.

Are you saying that food suppliers are purposefully making their food taste *worse* *and* doing so without getting some alternative benefit?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The POINT, is that it IS consistent with other "nanny state" stupid ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, mabey I shouldnt have quoted you. Are you against the ban on transfats?

I really shouldnt have gotten into this because I dont really know that much about transfats. I'm not sure how much it costs companies and I'm not sure how bad transfats really are for you in the long run. Like, if I eat a normal amount of calories, exercise on a regular basis, are transfats going to significantly reduce my health compared to if I didnt eat transfats? Now that McDonalds is going to switch to nontransfats is it ok if I eat there every day?

I was just agreeing with the arguement that if you are going to ban transfats to protect people from themselves than its the equivalent to banning poker to protect people from themselves. And that making an anology to concerts was a pretty bad analogy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the issue isnt on the consumer side at all, transfats taste worse and aren't significantly cheaper , at least not currently. Companies dont even have to switch suppliers, since virtually all of them carry transfat free oils.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. I've seen both of these arguments, but never *together*. Usually it's "transfat tastes worse, but companies use it to save money" or "transfats *improve* flavor." It's certainly possible that they enhance flavor in some foods and worsen it in others, but I haven't heard that.

Are you saying that food suppliers are purposefully making their food taste *worse* *and* doing so without getting some alternative benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously they perceive alternate benefits. Among them might be that "better oil tastes different"..not worse, just not what their customers are used to.

Retraining and reprinting manuals for temperature, frying time differences and oil change intervals (the most critical element of cost) ..maybe even reprogramming automated fryers.

There was an article I read recently from a guy who owns 3 KFC franchises, and he said the difference in cost is $5-$10 a week or something on that order of magnitude.